POPERY DESTRUCTIVE OF THE EVI,

DENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.

A SERMON, PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AT ST. MARY'S, ON WEDNESDAY, NOVÉMBER 5, 1746.

BY NATHANIEL FORSTER, B.D.

FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.-Mark vii. 13.

THE

E principles and spirit of that church, whose unsuccessful attempts on our religion and liberties gave occasion for the present solemnity, have justly been observed to resemble in several respects those of Pharisaism among the Jews. Nor is there perhaps any circumstance in which they approach nearer to each other, than in being alike subject to the heavy imputation of" making the word of God of none effect through their traditions." That our Romish adversaries are, on many accounts, liable to this charge, might easily be made appear. But I shall at present confine myself to one important article of it, namely," the tendency which their doctrines and

principles have to promote the cause of scepticism and infidelity, and to render the word of God of none effect by destroying the credibility of it." A point this, which may deserve our attention, as it opens to us the true nature and spirit of Popery, is an answer to a like charge frequently brought by the church of Rome against the Reformation, and at the same time clears the Gospel from some of those aspersions, which our modern unbelievers have so industriously raked from the corruptions of it. In pursuance, therefore, of this design, I shall first enquire how far Popery affects those distinguishing characteristics of Christianity, which constitute its internal evidence; and secondly examine in like manner the effect it has on the external proofs of it.

And first, the advocates for Christianity generally begin with observing the great expediency of a clear, comprehensive, and determinate written system of religion, and the probability thence arising, that something of this kind may have been afforded us by God. And as this character is, they apprehend, sufficiently visible in the Gospel revelation, they justly esteem it no inconsiderable circumstance in favour of its pretensions to a divine original. But the avowed principles of the Romish church, require us to look upon the holy Scriptures in a very different light, to consider them as so imperfect even in the most necessary point of faith and practice, that oral tradition must be called in to their assistance, so obscure and indeterminate in some of the fundamental-articles of our religion, that no private

person can be sufficiently secure of their true meaning, and so liable to be perverted and abused, that they cannot even safely be trusted with the bulk of mankind. Admirable characteristics these of a divine revelation, and extremely proper to inspire a sense of its importance, and a favourable presumption of its supposed authority!

But secondly, from this general view of the revelation itself, let us proceed to the doctrines contained in it. And here the first question which arises concerning them, is, whether they are agreeable to right reason? For if any one of them, when properly understood, is plainly contrary to it, this is of itself sufficient to destroy the authority of the whole revelation. Doctrines may indeed undoubtedly be sup-` posed to proceed from God, which mere unassisted reason could not have discovered, and which, when revealed, are still in some respects so far above our reason, that we may be unable perfectly to comprehend them. These, whatever difficulties may attend any attempt to be wise above what is written in a particular explanation of them, may yet justly be admitted under the notion of mysteries. But where the case is different, where the nature of the subject is such, that we have the same clear and perfect view of it, which we have of any other that falls within the reach of our understandings, a doctrine which is contained in a pretended revelation, and yet plainly contradicts those principles and observations by which we judge of all other objects, is not only to be rejected itself as absurd, but exposes likewise the

whole system of which it is a part, to our contempt and ridicule. And such, if any such there be, is this assertion of the church of Rome, that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one finite natural body is really and substantially changed into another, whilst every circumstance by which we can possibly distinguish one body from another, remains perfectly the same. An absurdity so glaring, that notwithstanding the vast multitude of dark terms and unmeaning distinctions with which the subtle defenders of it have endeavoured to palliate this vile blunder of their ignorant ancestors, it effectually, if it be the doctrine of Christ, overthrows the credibility of his Gospel; not to mention that the writers of the Romish church have frequently done their utmost to strengthen this objection, by representing (in order to make us give up our understandings entirely in matters of religion) faith. and reason as equally at variance with each other throughout the whole system of Christianity.

The next thing worthy our notice in the internal evidence of the Gospel, is the purity and excellence of its morality, or in other words, the supposed tendency of its doctrines and precepts to recommend to us the most exalted scheme of virtue, and to enforce the universal practice of it by every the most prevailing consideration imaginable. This is a circumstance which is not indeed sufficient of itself to prove the divine authority of our religion, and yet the want of it could not but conclude strongly to its disadvantage. The tendency there

fore of any single doctrine to the contrary, to serve the interests of vice, or weaken the obligations to virtue, becomes a considerable objection to it. And is not Christianity, as it stands upon the plan of our Romish adversaries, visibly liable to this objection? For, not to insist on some of the infamous maxims of their casuists, (because though approved by too many, they are yet disavowed by others; not to insist, I say, on these) is it not evidently destructive of the necessity of a good life, to suppose that the priest is invested with a judicial authority to forgive sins, and that a very imperfect degree of sorrow for them, arising merely from fear of punishment (such an one indeed as the most hardened, sinner will sometimes feel, and which may produce only some faint and sudden thoughts of amendment) that such attrition sufficiently qualifies us for this authoritative absolution? So that all the hazard which the most wicked man runs of his salvation, is only the danger of so sudden a death as gives him no space for the momentary act, on which his happiness depends; a chance, which whoever is strongly addicted to his vices, will be too apt to run, when remission of them may at any time be had on such easy terms.

Further, the great and indeed only sufficient enforcement of virtue with the bulk of mankind, arises from a conviction that their behaviour here absolutely determines them to eternal happiness or misery hereafter, and that nothing to be done by others can atone for the want of what they may and ought to do